MC says "The letter restates existing BC perspectives." This is false. At least the following sentences have no support in existing BC policies, adopted per our Charter: 1. It has been disappointing that ICANN staff, and the Board have consistently avoided, or negated the concerns that have been raised in these areas. [IT IS RIDICULOUS TO SAY THE BOARD HAS AVOIDED OR NEGATIED CONCERNS IN THIS AREA.] 2. This letter calls to the Board's and senior staff attention the need for improvements in specific areas related to these continuing concerns which should be addressed before strings are added to the root. [THIS IS CLEARLY A CALL FOR DELAY.] These are not policies of the BC, and should not be stated as such. If you want to send a private letter, you should do it, but you should not use this list to drum up support for it. You are sliding down a slippery slope with this, Marilyn, and clearly exceeding your very limited authority as Chair. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1.415.738.8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message----- From: bc-private-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:56 AM To: mike@rodenbaugh.com Cc: bc-private icann.org Subject: Re: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft The letter restates existing BC perspectives. Discussion on the list about this general topic has been underway since 12/12 with a short list of comments or objections. In response to objections, the list of changes is on a different track. However, as I have noted, the letter states BC concerns about risks to trademark holders and asks For continued efforts to fix them. It does not propose a delay in the announcement scheduled. Marilyn Cade/Sent from my iPad On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:03 PM, "mike@rodenbaugh.com" <mike@rodenbaugh.com> wrote:
Agreed. This letter does not have BC support as required by the Charter.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
----- Reply message ----- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com> Date: Tue, Jan 3, 2012 9:34 am Subject: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft To: "'Marilyn Cade'" <marilynscade@hotmail.com>, "'bc-secretariat @icann'" <bc-secretariat@icann.org>, "'bc-private icann.org'" <bc-private@icann.org>
Marilyn,
While I remain one of the more outspoken opponents regarding unaddressed concerns with ICANN's new gTLD process, here is why I believe sending this letter to the ICANN board on behalf of the BC (instead of it being signed off by individual members)will do more harm than good.
If you send this letter to the Board those members that have expressed significant reservation about this letter coming from the BC will likely have to take appropriate action to set the record straight. What those actions may be I have no idea, but I believe that it will undermine the long term credibility of this constituency.
Best regards,
Michael
From: bc-private-bounces@icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 11:56 AM To: bc-secretariat @icann; bc-private icann.org Subject: [Bc-private] Chair's letter to CEO and Bd Chair/Final draft
On Dec 13, a draft approach was circulate to bc-private. Later discussions [all of which are on bc-private list] identified specific changes, a draft letter, and input from some members suggestions have led me to the following approach:
The following letter will go to addressees tomorrow. The Board is split and some recognize the need for improvements, and others are conflicted, and can't speak. This letter does not call for a delay, but calls for improvements.
NOTE: no attachment on improvements will accompany this letter. The draft list of improvements will be circulated to BC separately, and will include all the earlier topics. That list will be discussed on the BC meeting next week, so be sure you are on that call.
_______________________________________________ Bc-private mailing list Bc-private@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bc-private